What'wrong in this argument? (Atom/Photon interferometry)

[mhsjx]

TL;DR Summary

Can I just replace the replace the photon state in a photon interferometer into atom state to attain the derivation of an atom interferometer?

First, we can think a MZ interferometer as a combination of two beamspliter and a phase shifter(from MIT course "Atomic and Optical Physics II", the paper is "Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer"), which evolution matrix is B = {{1,-i},{-i,1}},B dagger and P ={{1,0},{{0,exp{i\phi}}}.
Assuming a single photon state |1> couple with a vacuum state |0> as an input, then, just multiply the initial state and evolution matrix, we can get the final state, which is the result.
So, can we just copy to the atom interferomter and just say we use the Hyperfine level of groud state denoted by |F=2,mF=0> and |F=3,mF=0> to replace single photon state |1> and vacuum state |0> to get the same result?
My answer is yes, but my teacher deny it and say "you can not use this model to express the noise suddenly appear in an atom interferometer such as EMP and the replacement is not intuitively correct". Then I say "we can not use a model to express a sudden noise, even the Feyman Path Approach method(the paper is "The Feynman Path Integral Approach to Atomic Interferometry. A Tutorial")". But he still disagree with me.
So, my question is:

1. Is the replacement valid? If it's not correct, how can I use it in an atom interferometer, or the whole method just not valid for it?(The derivation is so beauty that I want to use it, but I have no idea)
2. The rightness of our argument

I'm so happy if anyone could give me some addvice or papper about the princle of atom interferometer, or we can disscuss this problem. Thank you!

 

[eljose79]

I understand your desire to apply a well-established model to a new system such as an atom interferometer. However, in science, we must always be cautious and critical in our approach and not simply assume that a model developed for one system can be directly applied to another.

In this case, the replacement of the single photon state and vacuum state with the hyperfine levels of the ground state may not be valid. This is because the behavior of photons and atoms are fundamentally different. Photons are bosons, meaning they can occupy the same state, while atoms are fermions and cannot occupy the same state. This difference in behavior can lead to different results when applying the same model.

Furthermore, as your teacher pointed out, the sudden noise that may occur in an atom interferometer cannot be easily explained using the same model as for photons. This is because the noise in an atom interferometer can be influenced by a variety of factors such as magnetic fields, collisions with other atoms, and external perturbations, which may not be present in a photon interferometer.

In order to properly model and understand the behavior of atom interferometers, it is important to consider the specific properties and interactions of atoms. There may be other models or approaches that are more suitable for this system, and it is important to explore and develop them rather than trying to force a model from another system onto it.

In conclusion, while the derivation of the MZ interferometer may be elegant and beautiful, it may not be applicable to atom interferometers. It is important to carefully consider the properties and interactions of the system in question and develop appropriate models and approaches for understanding its behavior. I suggest consulting with experts in the field and exploring existing literature on atom interferometry to gain a better understanding of its principles and applications.